Reporting Washington meeting, 24-25 Feb

[Mawaki Chango]

Hello Folks:

The GNSO Council meeting in Washington is over. Here are the outlines
of the discussions that took place, followed by a compilation of the
main results. Good reading, mawaKi.
---

o Friday 24, morning: 

Review of ICANN mission and core values, and identification of which
ones are relevant to introducing new gTLDs.

Review of the papers submitted with telephone presentation by a few
authors. Questions from the floor

o Friday 24, afternoon:

. Should we have new gTLDs? Discussion of past experience, including
constituencies’ position over time, the public comments and other
external factors (e.g. alternative roots, IDN, etc.) 
. Should we have new gTLDs, yes or no? The answer was YES from all
participants (constituencies), from a strong and bold yes to a
“pragmatic” yes (Business). Then various conditions were made
explicit  and discussed for the introduction of new gTLDs to take
place in an efficient manner.

This session was followed by the Council meeting (open to non
councilors), from 6pm to past 8pm, where we discussed and updated the
PDP terms of reference (see below). Those will be voted by the
Council on a conference call, March 2.

o Saturday 25, morning & afternoon:

. Review of the selection criteria from the first (Aug 2000) and
second (Dec 2003) rounds of new gTLDs introduction

. Review and discussion of proposed selection criteria by the various
constituencies for the current PDP (see below).

This discussion dragged out over lunch and till early afternoon. Then
we learned that the allocation criteria that the meeting wanted to
discuss could not be covered. At that point (3:30pm) we left the
meeting for about 7 hr drive back home.

====
Terms of Reference for PDP-Feb06

Context

The GNSO initiated a policy development process in December 2005
[PDP-Dec05] to develop policy around whether to introduce new gTLDs,
and
if so, determine the selection criteria, allocation methods, and
contractual conditions.   

During 2005, ICANN commenced a process of revising the .net and .com
agreements. There has been substantial discussion amongst members of
the
GNSO community around both the recently signed .net agreement (dated
29
June 2005), and the proposed .com agreements (dated 24 October 2005
and
29 January 2006). As a result, the GNSO Council recognized that
issues
such as renewal could be considered as part of the broader issue of
contractual conditions for existing gTLDs, and that it may be more
appropriate to have policies that apply to gTLDs generally on some of
the matters raised by GNSO members, rather than be treated as matters
to
negotiate on a contract by contract basis.

Subsequently on the 17 January 2006, GNSO Council requested that the
ICANN staff produce an issues report "related to the dot COM proposed
agreement in relation to the various views that have been expressed
by
the constituencies."  This issues report is available at:

http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01951.html
.  
Section D of this issues report provides a discussion of many of the
issues that had been raised by the GNSO community in response to the
proposed revisions to the .com agreement.   In the issues report the
ICANN General Counsel advised that it would not be appropriate to
consider a policy development process that specifically targets the
.com
registry agreement.   

At its meeting on 6 February 2006, members of the GNSO Council
clarified
that the intention of the request for the issues report was to seek
an
issues report on the topic of the broader policy issues that relate
to
the contractual conditions of gTLD agreements, which have been
identified from the various views expressed by the GNSO
constituencies
on the proposed .com agreement.

At its meeting on 6 February 2006 the GNSO Council recognised that
while
the PDP initiated in December 2005 [PDP-Dec05] included within its
terms
of reference the topic of contractual conditions, a possible outcome
of
that PDP would be that there should be no additional gTLDs, and thus
the
Council could not depend on this PDP to address the issues raised by
the
GNSO community.

Thus at its meeting on 6 February 2006, the GNSO Council, by a
super-majority decision, decided to initiate a separate PDP
[PDP-Feb06]
to look at specific areas of contractual conditions of existing
gTLDs.

The work of PDP-Feb06 will naturally be conducted within the context
of
the work on PDP-Dec05, and if it is decided that new gTLDS should be
introduced, the policy work of PDP-Feb06 will be incorporated into a
single gTLD policy.


Goal

The overall goal of this PDP therefore is to determine what policies
are
appropriate, for the long term future of gTLDs within the context of
ICANN's mission, that relate to the issues identified in the specific
terms of reference below.


Terms of Reference

1. Registry agreement renewal 
 
1a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding renewal,
and if so, what the elements of that policy should be.

1b. Recognizing that not all existing registry agreements share the
same Rights of Renewal, use the findings from above to determine
whether or not these conditions should be standardized across all
future agreements.


2. Relationship between registry agreements and consensus policies 

2a. Examine whether consensus policy limitations in registry
agreements are appropriate and how these limitations should be
determined.

2b. Examine whether the delegation of certain policy making
responsibility to sponsored TLD operators is appropriate, and if so,
what if any changes are needed.


3. Policy for price controls for registry services 

3a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy regarding price
controls, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be.
(note examples of price controls include price caps, and the same
pricing for all registrars)

3b. Examine objective measures (cost calculation method, cost
elements, reasonable profit margin) for approving an application for
a price increase when a price cap exists. 


4. ICANN fees 

4a.  Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding registry
fees to ICANN, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be.

4b. Determine how ICANN's public budgeting process should relate to
the negotiation of ICANN fees.


5. Uses of registry data 

Registry data is available to the registry as a consequence of
registry operation.  Examples of registry data could include
information on domain name registrants, information in domain name
records, and traffic data associated with providing the DNS
resolution services associated with the registry.

5a Examine whether or not there should be a policy regarding the use
of registry data for purposes other than for which it was collected,
and if so, what the elements of that policy should be.

5b. Determine whether any policy is necessary to ensure
non-discriminatory access to registry data that is made available to
third parties.


6. Investments in development and infrastructure 

6a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding
investments in development and infrastructure, and if so, what the
elements of that policy should be.

=======
Selection criteria

Business constituency:
-	sound business plan
	o	to minimise risk failure and impact on registrants
-	sound technical plan
	o	meet standards interoperability
	o	to minimise risk failure and impact on registrants
-	sound operational plan
	o	to minimise impact on registrants
-	will comply with ICANN policies
-	eligibility criteria for the registrant is limited to a defined
category
	o	to preserve and enhance the operational stability, reliability,
security, and global interoperability of the Internet.


Registry:

Criteria for the selection criteria:
-	consistent with ICANN's limited technical coordination mission
-	provide objectivity that will encourage members of the private
sector to participate in a new selection round
	o	to promote and sustain a competitive environment in the
registration of domain names
	o	that are capable of enhancing the operational stability,
reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet.
-	allow market forces to work freely in contrast to pre-determine
Internet user demands
	o	to promote and sustain a competitive environment.
-	should encourage TLD operators/sponsors to differentiate TLD from
other TLDs by offering users differentiated options beyond the
obvious choice of TLD e.g customer service levels, registry policies
etc.
	o	to promote and sustain a competitive environment in the
registration of domain names
	o	Respecting the creativity, innovation
-	should allow for policy decisions to made in the best interests and
with participation of relevant user communities in contrast to
centrally pre-determining all applicable policies for all TLDs
	o	by limiting ICANN's activities to those matters within ICANN's
mission requiring or significantly benefiting from global
coordination.
	o	So that To the extent feasible and appropriate, delegating
coordination functions to or recognizing the policy role of other
responsible entities that reflect the interests of affected parties
-	ensure the technical security and stability of the Internet
-	TLD application criteria should require compliance with ICANN
guidelines for IDNs
	o	To ensure global interoperability of the Internet.
-	applicants that seek to launch a TLD with a primary purpose being
to serve needs within a defined geographic territory (or territories)
should be asked to identify the specific market of users applicable
TLD
-	and where the territory is a developing country - describe measures
that will encourage use of the Internet within that country
-	no applicant should be allowed to propose a TLD that is either a
transliteration of an existing TLD or a lexical or semantic
equivalent of an existing TLD.


Registrars:

-	applicants must meet minimum technical requirements
-	registry operators accredited:
	o	minimum technical requirements
	o	minimum operational requirements
	o	minimum financial requirements - cash on hand
	o	must have insurance
-	maintain the requirement that registries use ICANN accredited
registrars
	o	to promote security and stability
	o	to promoting competition in the registration of domain names


Non-commercial:

-	criteria for the selection criteria
	o	neutral, objective and predictable selection process
§	to promote and sustain a competitive environment in the
registration of domain names
§	Respecting the creativity, innovation
§	Making decisions by applying documented policies neutrally and
objectively, with integrity and fairness.

-	minimal technical and operational criteria
	o	to promote interoperability


ISPs:

-	a representative from a well defined Community must be an applicant
for a new TLD, and registrants are limited to members of that
Community
	o	 to preserve security and stability
-	The applicant must show that the new TLD has support in the
Community
	o	As there is a concern that the TLD will fail and this may impact
the existing registrants of that TLD  - this in turn relates to the
core value of stability and reliability.
-	TLD application criteria should require compliance with ICANN
guidelines for IDNs, 
-	The applicant must use technology and have operations that can
implement IDNs at the second level
	o	To ensure global interoperability of the Internet.
-	The string chosen by the applicant must be differentiated from
other TLD strings
	o	To avoid strings that look the same and may cause a security issue
-	The string chosen must not infringe the intellectual property
rights of others 
-	No applicant should be allowed to propose a TLD that is either a
transliteration of an existing TLD or a lexical or semantic
equivalent of an existing TLD.


Intellectual Property:

-	criteria for the selection criteria
	o	predictable, straight forward transparent and objective procedures
§	Making decisions by applying documented policies neutrally and
objectively, with 
integrity and fairness.
§	Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability,
security, and global interoperability of the Internet.
§	Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain
names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest.
-	State in what way the new TLD maximizes benefits for the public
interest
	o	Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of
domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest.
-	the applicant must show added value, which will bring user demand,
which in turn will enhance competition
	o	minimize risk of failure with respect to stability, reliability
	o	maximize competition
-	must be a clearly differentiated space and satisfy needs that
cannot reasonably be met by existing TLDs
	o	minimize risk of failure with respect to stability, reliability
-	registrants are limited to members of a well-defined Community
	o	 to preserve security and stability
-	The applicant must show that the new TLD has support in the
Community
	o	As there is a concern that the TLD will fail and this may impact
the existing registrants of that TLD  - this in turn relates to the
core value of stability and reliability.
-	The applicant must have mechanisms to ensure compliance with the
charter of the TLD, and addressing violations
-	Accurate verification of registrant eligibility
-	Technical, financial, business, compliance policies
-	Maintenance of UDRP and robust database publicly accessible in
real-time and without cost to those query it (compliance ICANN
policy)